I've said it before and I'll say it again - football evolves. You cannot run Bart Starr's offense and expect it to do well today. You cannot run Joe Montana's offense and expect it to do well today.

Things keep changing. The WCO is outdated (but its concepts are used by all 32 teams). If you run a strictly WCO, enjoy watching the Playoffs from home.

You can't run Starr's offense, because they changed the rules to favor the passing game. The WCO was developed to take advantage of these rule changes. It is based on fundamentals, high percentage passing. This does not mean ONLY short passes. When the DBs start to cheat up to jump the slants and short passes, then you throw deep over their heads.

It also involves alot of misdirection in the forms of screens and traps.

Now granted, the NFL has been favoring offenses nowadays to promote high scoring games and tv-ratings-grabbing highlight reels. So yes, maybe that does favor us a little. There are many rules now that hurt the defense, which I do believe are surreptitiously meant to help offenses. But I'm a pretty conservative guy. I like to adhere to fundamentals. To me, high percentage=success.

It's not like Jerry Rice and John Taylor never had long scoring plays. Our guys can get YAC too.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

You can't run Starr's offense, because they changed the rules to favor the passing game. The WCO was developed to take advantage of these rule changes. It is based on fundamentals, high percentage passing. This does not mean ONLY short passes. When the DBs start to cheat up to jump the slants and short passes, then you throw deep over their heads.

It also involves alot of misdirection in the forms of screens and traps.

Now granted, the NFL has been favoring offenses nowadays to promote high scoring games and tv-ratings-grabbing highlight reels. So yes, maybe that does favor us a little. There are many rules now that hurt the defense, which I do believe are surreptitiously meant to help offenses. But I'm a pretty conservative guy. I like to adhere to fundamentals. To me, high percentage=success.

It's not like Jerry Rice and John Taylor never had long scoring plays. Our guys can get YAC too.

I totally get where you're coming from. But high percentage has changed. You're NOT gonna find quick slants as high percentage passes. LBs will be waiting to either smack the **** out of your WR or pick it off.

Defenses have evolved to take away the strengths of the WCO. So now, we gotta do something different.

's O is the shit. Seriously. It is. We setup deep and medium route passes and is one of the few QB's in the NFL who can complete them consistently. Be thankful.

One thing that does suck - our OL isn't giving Aaron the time we need to give Aaron. If our OL was one measly second better, we'd be winning the SB with ease (of course, given our D remains in the top 10).

I totally get where you're coming from. But high percentage has changed. You're NOT gonna find quick slants as high percentage passes. LBs will be waiting to either smack the **** out of your WR or pick it off.

Defenses have evolved to take away the strengths of the WCO. So now, we gotta do something different.

's O is the shit. Seriously. It is. We setup deep and medium route passes and is one of the few QB's in the NFL who can complete them consistently. Be thankful.

One thing that does suck - our OL isn't giving Aaron the time we need to give Aaron. If our OL was one measly second better, we'd be winning the SB with ease (of course, given our D remains in the top 10).

You're talking about Lovey's 'cover two' scheme. True, they try to take away slants. But a normal WCO also has screens and traps. It's not just based upon one concept. The concept is, do this until they take that away, then take advantage of THAT weakness, which is left open. If the CB covers you to the inside, you go to the outside. We see this with those back shoulder plays. Haven't been hitting them as consistently this season, because our timing's been off.

Aaron's unique ability to throw accurately deep, combined with the talent Ted has given us at WR (and TE) are what make this offense. This affords Mike the ability to get out of what would normally be fundamentals and key on "matchups."

IMO, matchups AND fundamentals would be even more bitchin. Long as we win it all, I guess it's all good.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

If you're going to troll, don't spit out the same line over and over. It makes it very obvious.

He's not trolling - it is an observation he believes in and I don't think he is all that off base on his thinking. Like or not, Favre was a prick his last five years in GB. I don't think McCarthey liked him all that much, and I'm sure Rodgers set the bar that high to break Favre's records along with winning.

Favre is not the demigod a lot of Packers think he is. He acted like a petulant child when he arrived in GB, and left as a diva. Professionalism wasn't his thing, because his reputation was built on his talent.

He's not trolling - it is an observation he believes in and I don't think he is all that off base on his thinking. Like or not, Favre was a prick his last five years in GB. I don't think McCarthey liked him all that much, and I'm sure Rodgers set the bar that high to break Favre's records along with winning.

Favre is not the demigod a lot of Packers think he is. He acted like a petulant child when he arrived in GB, and left as a diva. Professionalism wasn't his thing, because his reputation was built on his talent.

lol Didn't know that was in dispute.

Aaron makes no secret of how the situation continues to "motive him."

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Nobody's gonna get Favre's records. Peyton Manning is gonna come closest and he might get some of them. But Aaron's not gonna get any of them. Nothing against Aaron. He's gonna retire a better QB than Favre. But simply put, Favre played too many games for his records to be broken. So I don't even think Mike McCarthy even considers Favre's records.

I know you believe that Nerd, but in this case, with all due respect, you're wrong. Aaron's gotta play another 13 or 14 years without injury and the chances of that happening are slim. I don't see Aaron playing another 10.

Aaron Rodgers cares about nothing else other than winning Super Bowls. Sure, other individual achievements may cross their mind here and there, but the desire to be a champion trumps everything else. It's not even close. To say otherwise is silly. I could care less if Rodgers never breaks any of Favre's records, so long as he wins a few more championships, and I'm sure he feels the same. Rodgers has said before that he wants to win a few championships, and likely retire. He knows that's what really matters and means the most in the long-run, regardless of anything Favre did or did not do. He's not in competition with Favre, he's in competition with current NFL teams. Would he like to break some of Favre's records? Sure. Who the hell wouldn't? What player wouldn't like to break any monumental NFL milestones. However, I can say with some certainly that most would trade multiple championships, especially as a key contributor, to individual success. Obviously the best of both worlds would be to do both, and we should all hope all Packer players do such things, as that would likely result in an elite team. If the Packers would truly a "stat padding" team, we would see a lot more running up the score like the Saints and Patriots do. The Packers rarely do that, much to the dismay of some Packer fans. Once they secure a win, they get fairly conservative and move forward.

What a silly argument Nerd continually tries to make. Dakota is right, he's entitled to his opinion, even if it's completely wrong and nonsensical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - football evolves. You cannot run Bart Starr's offense and expect it to do well today. You cannot run Joe Montana's offense and expect it to do well today.

Things keep changing. The WCO is outdated (but its concepts are used by all 32 teams). If you run a strictly WCO, enjoy watching the Playoffs from home.

I agree to a point, I think it is more cyclical on the defensive side.. fadish even. 3-4 comes in prominance.. then the 4-3... every now in then someone brings something to the table.. 46 for instance. People study it, rip some parts from it.. then incorporate it into the other base packages.

The offenses to a point do the same thing.. the spread that is all the rage.. go back and look at the run and shoot offenses. The pistol is about the only "new" evolving formation.. heck even the Packers ran the inverted wishbone some this year.. old school. RGIII is running a modified option offense for example.

The rules however are allowing some evolution to a degree if the route tree and the percentage of pass verses run.. but even that is a pattern. IE.. the fact that the Packers were forced to take defenses out of the two deep with runs and screens.. plays of that nature.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

Aaron Rodgers cares about nothing else other than winning Super Bowls. Sure, other individual achievements may cross their mind here and there, but the desire to be a champion trumps everything else. It's not even close. To say otherwise is silly. I could care less if Rodgers never breaks any of Favre's records, so long as he wins a few more championships, and I'm sure he feels the same. Rodgers has said before that he wants to win a few championships, and likely retire. He knows that's what really matters and means the most in the long-run, regardless of anything Favre did or did not do. He's not in competition with Favre, he's in competition with current NFL teams. Would he like to break some of Favre's records? Sure. Who the hell wouldn't? What player wouldn't like to break any monumental NFL milestones. However, I can say with some certainly that most would trade multiple championships, especially as a key contributor, to individual success. Obviously the best of both worlds would be to do both, and we should all hope all Packer players do such things, as that would likely result in an elite team. If the Packers would truly a "stat padding" team, we would see a lot more running up the score like the Saints and Patriots do. The Packers rarely do that, much to the dismay of some Packer fans. Once they secure a win, they get fairly conservative and move forward.

What a silly argument Nerd continually tries to make. Dakota is right, he's entitled to his opinion, even if it's completely wrong and nonsensical.

Aaron Rodgers is slowly giving himself cancer, obsessing over every little slight he has ever perceived.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Anyone who starts at the QB position for more than 20 years is bound to put up numbers. I wouldn't be surprise if Aaron played for 20 years he'd be somewhere close to that but with less Interceptions and a ton more Lombardi's

I think it was a NFL Network interview where Rodgers said "you earn your pay-cheque in the regular season, and your legacy in the playoffs". I like that and I am glad that is how he views things as a Packer fan.

I think it was a NFL Network interview where Rodgers said "you earn your pay-cheque in the regular season, and your legacy in the playoffs". I like that and I am glad that is how he views things as a Packer fan.

Aaron would not have said it with that darn English accent you just gave him.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.